The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1887-06-04
the DAVID J. ADAMS CASE.
The Argument for the Prosecution
Begun.
Points Made by Graham, the Crown
Counsel.
Argument for the Government Not
Yet Finished.
Especial to the PREss.1 /

Especial to the PREsS.]
HALIFAX, N. s., June 3.-Crown Counsel
Graham commenced his argument in the case
of the American schooner David ]. Adams
before Chief Justice Mcdonald today. At
ter recapitulating the facts connected with
the seizure of the Adams, and the law on
the subject, the chief points of his argument
were the great stress laid upon the intention
of the Imperial Parliament as regards 'pre-
pairing to fish," He contended that the
great object Of the statute was to prevent
the Americans from making the British
coast the base of fishing operations. Eng
land wanted to assert undisputed territorial
control over the three miles of coast, and not
only to protect British fishermen in monop-
oily of the fisheries, but also in a monopoly
of bait and fishing supplies. Hence, after
enumerating four sole treaty reasons for
fishermen permitting American fishermen to
visit the Canadian coasts, the statutory
prohibition scfE preparing to fish"
was the most comprehensive phrase
that could be employed. The law
was not framed with the idea of catching
Americans in the act of fishing, but to pre-
vent their using Canadian waters for prep
arations to fish. Chief Justice Mcdonald in
cidentally intimated that this view could not
be successfully controverted. Graham con-
tinued that if the Americans were permitted
to prepare inside the three mile limit to fish
outside they would always give their
attention to fishing outside, and the whole
object OF the treaty and statute would be
nullihed. ltmatters very little where the
bait is to be used. The great evil to be REM
edied is the procuring of bait by Americans
on our coast. Chief Justice Young's judg-
ment of the confscating of the American
schooner Nickerson was quoted, when Chief
Justice Mcdonald remarked that the cases
of the NickeTson and the Adams were paral-
lei, and if the Nickerson was properly con-
fiscated the case Of the Adams was practical
ly settled. But, continued Graham, the
counsel for the defence have not even shown
that the captain of the Adams intended to
use the bait beyond the three mile limit. 1t
was an undoubted fact that fish could be
caught wherever found. Mr.. Graham next
proceeded to advance what the Chief Justice
declared was new and striking point
viz: That the captain of the Adams actual
ly 1fshed inside the limits, inasmuch as he
was responsible for the acts of his agent
He had employed men to fsh for bait. had
taken these fish aboard and paid the men for
their services. The counsel also took up the
points made by the defence that the Canadi-
an laws on this subject were ultra-vires, and
that the Americans were given the right to
purchase bait by an arrangement secured by
Andrew jackson in 1880. He argued that
the Dominion had the same power to make
laws regarding the fisheries as the Provinces
had before the confederation, and that the
Provincial acts were sustained by the high
est legal opinion of England, and that An
drew Jackson's proclamation related solely
to trading, and not fishing vessels. Graham
had not concluded his argument when the
court adjourned.